The Instigator
Tidin
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
annhasle
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Abortion Ought to be Illegal, Except Under the Circumstances of Forced Sex

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
annhasle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,202 times Debate No: 14086
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (70)
Votes (9)

 

Tidin

Pro

Big hanks to Annhasle for accepting my request to debate.
This is my first so go easy :P

Key Terms:

D1) Abortion: Termination of pregnancy.

D2) Ought: Should ....

D3) Illegal: Forbidden by law

D5) Forced Sex: Involving sexual intercourse with another person without that person's consent

P = Progression H = Hypothetical

Productive:

P1) In the case of forced sex, abortion should be legal. The woman made no willful decision (let's call it a contract) to enter into the sexual relationship.

P2) However, if you do willfully and knowingly enter into a sexual contract, you should be held responsible for your actions. Note, I draw a line of distinction between willfully entering the act and desiring every consequence of that act.

H1) To expound on act and consequence, let's say that you take a 10lbs weight and throw it up into the air in a crowded room. You aren't trying to hit anyone; you are just kind of curious what will happen when it hits the ground. But, to your horror, some idiot walks underneath the weight as it falls and is killed by it.

Did you intend to kill him? Of course not. Does the unwilling woman intend to get pregnant? Not in the least.
Did you intend to throw the weight into the air? Yes, you did. Did she intend to have sex? Most certainly.
Did you know that it was possible someone would walk underneath it? Yep. Did she know that pregnancy is caused by sex? Yessir.

Both should live with the consequence of their willful actions.

Therefore, the unborn child should have the protection of "do no harm", just like everyone else.

Closing: Before going any further, I would like to know my opponents reasoning, in order to properly understand what I am debating against.
annhasle

Con

Thanks to Tidin for the challenge. I hope this will remain fun for both of us!

My position is simple: Women should be allowed to choose abortion as a means to terminate their pregnancy (except late term) without state or federal intervention. Since the fetus is an extension of the mother and dependent on her for life, it is the mothers right to choose what she plans to do with her own body. It is her civil right.

- REBUTTALS -

P1) "In the case of forced sex, abortion should be legal. The woman made no willful decision (let's call it a contract) to enter into the sexual relationship."

I would agree. But what if she was having consensual sex but she found out that she was pregnant, even though she was taking contraceptives. She then found out that her husband had replaced them with placebos since he wanted a child. In this case, she did not plan to have a child even though the sex was consensual - would she be allowed to have an abortion?

Or what if the condom broke during consensual intercourse? She obviously did not intend to get pregnant and took the necessary measures to keep herself from being impregnated. Would she be allowed to have an abortion?

P2) "However, if you do willfully and knowingly enter into a sexual contract, you should be held responsible for your actions. Note, I draw a line of distinction between willfully entering the act and desiring every consequence of that act."

Even with necessary precautions, there is always the chance of being impregnated. In no way does that deter someone from having sex since it is a natural desire. But with this type of policy in place, only more harm would ensue.

Example 1) Many teenagers become pregnant all over the world. Not only do 70,000 girls ages 15-19 die each year from pregnancy and childbirth, but the babies that do survive have a 60% higher chance of dying as well. [1] By having this type of policy, thousands of teenagers are put at risk for death.

Example 2) 1 billion poorest people on the planet are female. In sub-Saharan Africa and west Asia, women typically have five to six children, which leaves the destitute and powerless. [1]

P3) "Therefore, the unborn child should have the protection of "do no harm", just like everyone else."

"Do no harm" is for the protection of human life. However, the definition of human under the Bouvier's Law dictionary is:
"Person : An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity [2]

A fetus does not fit under these requirements and therefore does not have the same 'protection' under law.

Sources will be in the Comments section.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
Tidin

Pro

Thanks for the opposition.

E = Explanation O = Observation

Neg Rebuttal:

"I would agree. But what if she was having consensual sex but she found out that she was pregnant, even though she was taking contraceptives. She then found out that her husband had replaced them with placebos since he wanted a child. In this case, she did not plan to have a child even though the sex was consensual - would she be allowed to have an abortion?"

E1) This is one of the few times I cop out with a tautology: if you managed to get pregnant, you didn't do enough to guard against it, regardless of what you did or didn't do.

I use this from a policy perspective because it is literally impossible to prove that you used a condom and/or birth control and used them properly. On top of that, both have a published failure rate.

If both parties agree to have sex, everything else is mere details.

"Many teenagers become pregnant all over the world. Not only do 70,000 girls ages 15-19 die each year from pregnancy and childbirth, but the babies that do survive have a 60% higher chance of dying as well. [1] By having this type of policy, thousands of teenagers are put at risk for death."

E2) In the case of life of the mother, the woman has the right to kill in self defense. The child is considered the aggressor against the actors life or death circumstance.

""Do no harm" is for the protection of human life. However, the definition of human under the Bouvier's Law dictionary is:
"Person : An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity"

E3) I disagree with "Bouvie's Law" on the aspect of defining human life. According to the Appalachian Journal of Law life begins at the point of conception[1, Pg. 17]. Furthermore, under normal circumstances the fetus will become a human.
Excerpt:
"So which is it? Does life begin at the beginning point of this nine-
month continuum or at the end of it? We take the former position. We
maintain that the fetus is an alive human being from day one onward, with
all the rights pertaining to any other member of the species"

O1) Double Standards
a. If both people are equally responsible for the conception, why does the woman have the right to compel the man against his will (pay child support) but the man doesn't have the right to compel the woman against her will (carry the child)?
b. If a woman is murdered while pregnant the murderer is charged with a double homicide.

I will go on to further my argument in the next round. I went over the character limit and already cut a lot out.

[1]http://www.walterblock.com...
annhasle

Con

Thanks, Tidin.

- REBUTTALS -

>"E1) This is one of the few times I cop out with a tautology: if you managed to get pregnant, you didn't do enough to guard against it, regardless of what you did or didn't do."

Is that a fair policy to implement? Regardless of if you actually took the appropriate measures to not being impregnated, you get your right taken away as though you had not planned ahead?

>"I use this from a policy perspective because it is literally impossible to prove that you used a condom and/or birth control and used them properly. On top of that, both have a published failure rate."

Looking at it in a purely political perspective, is that grounds to take away someone's civil rights? Such a policy is preempted by the right to choose procedures for yourself -- would you agree with the state not allowing you to have a kidney transplant? Or forcing you to undergo artificial insemination?

>"If both parties agree to have sex, everything else is mere details."

Those 'mere details' prove the legitimacy of your case. So far you are denying someone of the right to choose their own procedures because you cannot prove if they used a condom.

>"3) I disagree with "Bouvie's Law" on the aspect of defining human life. According to the Appalachian Journal of Law life begins at the point of conception[1, Pg. 17]."

The concept of personhood is different than where life begins. Also, the eggs that aren't implanted in in vitro fertilization are routinely thrown away -- should that be illegal since technically life has started then? [1]

Also, since the fetus cannot exist independently and is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord -- it is not granted legal protection under "do no harm" since it's part of the mother's body and ultimately her choice.

>"Furthermore, under normal circumstances the fetus will become a human."

Regardless, at the present it is a clump of cells. If we put forward a policy that makes abortion illegal since it's the killing of cells that *could* become a human -- then each time a man masturbates, he's committing murder.

>"a. If both people are equally responsible for the conception, why does the woman have the right to compel the man against his will (pay child support) but the man doesn't have the right to compel the woman against her will (carry the child)?"

Her body -- simple as that. To make her carry the child would be going against her right to choose what is best for her body. Child support is for the best of the child and purely in it's interests. As a parent, this is their responsibility.

>"b. If a woman is murdered while pregnant the murderer is charged with a double homicide."

Simply because it is currently in place doesn't make it 'logical' or even a viable argument. I'm sure you'd argue against slavery being a morally acceptable form of labor and yet at one point it was legal.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
Tidin

Pro

Thanks, Annhasle

Neg Rebuttals:

"Is that a fair policy to implement? Regardless of if you actually took the appropriate measures to not being impregnated, you get your right taken away as though you had not planned ahead?"

E4) Yes it is a fair policy, as shown in my H1. Consequences don't hinge on what you did to get there. If someone engages in a sexual act, they take the burden of everything that it entails under the original contract in P1. In other words, It has nothing to do with taking "rights" away and everything to do with breaking the contract of the action.

"The concept of personhood is different than where life begins. Also, the eggs that aren't implanted in in vitro fertilization are routinely thrown away -- should that be illegal since technically life has started then?"

O2) I see the difference but at the same time I find it irrelevant. My arguments come from a property rights perspective. Adding on to my E3, I argue that the "entity" has legal rights and exists. Besides, using that definition goes against your original argument ("except late term").

"Also, since the fetus cannot exist independently and is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord -- it is not granted legal protection under "do no harm" since it's part of the mother's body and ultimately her choice."

P3) This is different than abortion, it is evicting. We agree that a woman's right to her property is held higher, in value, than the life of the fetus. If the mother evicts the fetus and, in turn, is unable to live on it's own, then so be it. Just because it cannot live independently from host doesn't mean it can never. Nothing is stopping anyone to uncover technology to keep the fetus alive absent the host. Also, I would also like to emphasize again, the legal protection originates from two parties, accepting a contract, by engaging in sexual intercourse.

"Regardless, at the present it is a clump of cells. If we put forward a policy that makes abortion illegal since it's the killing of cells that *could* become a human -- then each time a man masturbates, he's committing murder."

E5) Once the egg is fertilized, and in not interfered or further effort, the fetus is now on its way to being a human.

"Her body -- simple as that. To make her carry the child would be going against her right to choose what is best for her body. Child support is for the best of the child and purely in it's interests. As a parent, this is their responsibility."

P4) I argue that the loss of a lifetime with a mans child is on par, or outweighs the 9 months of pregnancy the woman has to endure. Therefor, a man should then be able to sue the woman claiming 'loss of consortium' [1].

"Simply because it is currently in..."

O3) Should it be legally acceptable for a woman not to seek justice, by her standards, if a person murdered a woman's unborn child? what if she intended to keep it?

Love the debate, =)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
annhasle

Con

Thanks, Tidin.

> "E4) Yes it is a fair policy, as shown in my H1. Consequences don't hinge on what you did to get there. If someone engages in a sexual act, they take the burden of everything that it entails under the original contract in P1. In other words, It has nothing to do with taking "rights" away and everything to do with breaking the contract of the action."

If this policy was in place, then like other laws, it should have varying courses of action based upon the intent of the woman. If a woman wore no condom and did not take birth control, why should she have the same punishment as a woman who made the man wear a condom? Intent is a very important factor in law -- it keeps law just and fair to all.

However, if we are to follow along with my logic, then you'd see that taking a woman's right to abortion is in fact taking away the ability to choose her own procedures for the best of her own body. Therefore, that policy would be unjust and the scope of government would only increase.

>"O2) I see the difference but at the same time I find it irrelevant. My arguments come from a property rights perspective. Adding on to my E3, I argue that the "entity" has legal rights and exists. Besides, using that definition goes against your original argument ("except late term")."

However, late term abortions are when a woman chooses to abort the fetus when it could live outside the body [1]. Therefore, the baby would have the protection under law since it is a separate entity. A fetus is entirely dependent on the woman for life and, for reasons stated before, does not have the protection of 'due no harm' nor property rights.

>" If the mother evicts the fetus and, in turn, is unable to live on it's own, then so be it. Just because it cannot live independently from host doesn't mean it can never. Nothing is stopping anyone to uncover technology to keep the fetus alive absent the host."

The law cannot make policies simply because there *could* be technology in the future. If the fetus cannot live independently, then it is not a separate entity and does *not* have protection.

>"Also, I would also like to emphasize again, the legal protection originates from two parties, accepting a contract, by engaging in sexual intercourse."

Except the fetus is a part of the woman's body and her choice. And simply engaging in sexual intercourse does not mean accepting the fetus, for either the man or woman. Sexual intercourse could be entirely for pleasure and not for the creation of a fetus.

>"E5) Once the egg is fertilized, and in not interfered or further effort, the fetus is now on its way to being a human."

Regardless, it is a clump of cells attached to the mother. In the future, if she *chooses* to have the baby, then it will become a human. But that is neither here nor there.

>"O3) Should it be legally..."

Depends on the fetus. If it could live outside the womb, then it should receive protection.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
Tidin

Pro

"If this policy was in place, then like other laws, it should have varying courses of action based upon the intent of the woman. If a woman wore no condom and did not take birth control, why should she have the same punishment as a woman who made the man wear a condom? Intent is a very important factor in law -- it keeps law just and fair to all."

E6) It does not matter whether your intentions are pure. As explained in P2 & H1, there is a distinction between willfully entering the act (sex) and desiring every consequence the act (baby, venereal diseases). Unless you can find me a man or woman who doesn't understand that having sex has unintended consequences, along with, knowing every safeguard against the consequences isn't absolute, then you may have a point. Otherwise, as I've said before, everything else is mere details.

"However, if we are to follow along with my logic, then you'd see that taking a woman's right to abortion is in fact taking away the ability to choose her own procedures for the best of her own body."

E7) By engaging in sex, I would argue that she already chose her path. Therefor, forfeits all rights to end the fetuses life.

"Therefore, that policy would be unjust and the scope of government would only increase."

E8) Not necessarily, Different political economies could have their own way of implementing such a policy. An anarchist, minianarchist, democratic, etc. system could apply this in the way property rights are dealt with (suing), and, the way they would deal with any other murder case. I admit that this would be tricky in an anarchist system, and if I had more character space I would write more thoroughly on the subject (where we might actually agree).

"The law cannot make policies simply because there *could* be technology in the future. If the fetus cannot live independently, then it is not a separate entity and does *not* have protection."

E9) It is not a law, it is a negative right. Negative rights are timeless, meaning, a cavemen had the same rights as we do today. In other words, the right to not be harmed is a negative right. Therefor, the fetus does have the same right to not be harmed. For example, A 100 years ago we couldn't evict the baby without causing it harm (aggression). Today we have the technology to not harm the fetus if it is removed from the host (non-aggression -> aggression). A 100 years from now we could have the ability to keep the fetus going (viable solution against abortion). Until we are able of such technology the act of aborting the fetus is murder.

Conclusion:

My position is based upon voluntary accepting the contract from having sex, by engaging in sex itself. Furthermore, the contract should be kept, just as though, in any other contractual agreement. If the contract is in anyway breached, a measure of punishment should be held against the person. For example, a man, wanting to keep the child, could sue as explained in P4.

THANKS
annhasle

Con

"It does not matter whether your intentions are pure."

That's illogical. In almost all areas of law, intentions dictate the punishment or if the defendant is persecuted at all (mens rea). [1]

"Unless you can find me a man or woman who doesn't understand that having sex has unintended consequences, along with, knowing every safeguard against the consequences isn't absolute, then you may have a point."

When abstinence only programs were being taught, the use of contraceptives dropped along with the standards for sexual education where possibilities of STD's and pregnancy was not taught. This caused teenage pregnancy to increase by 3%. [2]

"By engaging in sex, I would argue that she already chose her path. Therefor, forfeits all rights to end the fetuses life."

By having sex, she forfeits the right to decide her own procedures or what's right for her own body? Having intercourse is not the same as accepting a fetus to form within your body, and the right to choose should never be taken away based upon federal intervention. The government has no right to dictate what procedure you should have -- it's neither their right or responsibility.

"Not necessarily, Different political economies could have their own way of implementing such a policy."

And yet, due to the consequences of implementing such a policy, it would be unwise. The willful taking away of a woman's right because she had sex is nonsensical and unnecessary. As said before (and never refuted) it is her civil right.

"Until we are able of such technology the act of aborting the fetus is murder."

The eviction of a clump of cells is not murder. It's a part of her body since it's dependent on her to live and is connected through the placenta and umbilical cord. She has the right to choose if she wants to be pregnant or not since it is ultimately her body and her fetus. Simply because it could become a child is not a viable argument since the sperm that is ejaculated during masturbation could have been children. It's an arbitrary distinction.

- Conclusion -

Since it is her body, the woman should have the right to choose what procedures she wants to go through. Would you allow the government to step in and tell you "You *have* to get your kidney removed"? Same principle. Abortions can save a womans life and reduce the chances of poverty (as shown in the first round). It's her civil right to decide what is best for her body and since the fetus is dependent on her for life and is connected to her, then it is not in fact a separate entity and is not protected by the laws put forward by Pro. To make abortions illegal would be illogical and almost impossible to enforce. This wouldn't decrease the number of abortions but in fact, it would only make the procedures less safe. [3] There would be more poor woman thrown into jail because they could not take care of their fetus and decided to do what was best for them which is not a just policy.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
70 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by boomeranghugs 6 years ago
boomeranghugs
Woop woop! ;D
Posted by Tidin 6 years ago
Tidin
I have had about 4 alcoholic drinks thus far. I think it is in my better interest not to keep engaging in actually thinking straight.

Time to have a fun night out in Seattle..
Posted by Tidin 6 years ago
Tidin
You mentioned "today", not whether you agree with it or not; so I did the same. We fundamentally think different this issue. Like I said, I am willing to live with the consequences of someone voluntarily engaging in a act that may end up bringing about a biological life form.

I'm willing to bet money that if women had no safety net to lean back against once they became pregnant, then society wouldn't be so careless about sex itself.

Poverty; Why I shouldn't care:
(remember people make decisions on what is best for them, within their own bias)

1. In society A, there is no state welfare (wealth taken away from me to give to them).
2. Actor x, y and z both have the ability to make decisions on a benefit/cost analysis (Utility).
2. Since actor x, y and actor z are individuals, then actor x and z are not directly affected by what actor y does in terms of becoming pregnant.
3. Actor y chooses to engage in sex (fully aware that it could lead unintended consequences), even though she cannot add a dependent to her financial situation.
4. Actor x chooses to engage in sex (dido), when she is able to afford to live with the unintended consequences.
5. Actor z chooses to not have a child and has a procedure to make sure it doesn't happen (sue if she does).
6. Legally, both actor x and z do not have to worry about the well being of actor y, she made her decisions by willingly having sex (contract).
7. Therefor, the poverty is self induced. Capitalism only gives you the means to do what you want.

If a man and a woman decide that it is in their better interest to have sex, then they have weighed the utility of the action. Meaning, the probability of having protected sex will not lead to a fertilized egg, but if it does, then they must live with the consequences.

It is not my responsibility to care whether the person can get a job or not.

Civil rights only apply when not taking away another human life's civil rights (I know we disagree on human/person
Posted by annhasle 6 years ago
annhasle
That would increase the dependency on social programs that are detrimental to the economy (and really, I don't agree with welfare at all -- but that's a different story)

That would still increase the number of people in poverty since not all children will be adopted and more will be forced to stay within foster homes -- which have less funds since they have to spend the money on more children, while lowering the amount of which they can spend per kid.

I do not support the government's right to taking away children. That should not be a solution to the problem.

Are you willing to say that all who get pregnant can get a job? Or have a fair chance at being employed? There are far too many 'what ifs' to implement this policy with any piece of mind. You say that a 16 year old can work -- and technically, she could -- but that doesn't mean that it's probable or possible for all who get pregnant.

Plus, none of this defeats the civil right to choose your own procedure.

Happy holidays! :)
Posted by Tidin 6 years ago
Tidin
The realities of the world we live in today?

Today, if a woman had a child, then the state would help provide for that child (food stamps, dependents, subsided housing, etc.. etc.).

Today, if a woman had a child, then she has the option to give that child up (adoptions, foster care, etc.. etc.)

Today, if a woman cannot take care of her child, child care protection agencies take the child.

Knowing that having sex leads to the mere possibility of a child means that the actor had to equate that into the action. Even a 16 year old who works at fast food, for minimum wage, has the ability to raise a child, without dieing.... so, you com' on.

BTW, happy holidays.
Posted by annhasle 6 years ago
annhasle
No, that would be the reality of the situation. If they have to give birth to a child when they cannot support themselves -- how do you think they will both live? Come on, Tidin. This is the reality of other third world countries. Just because we live in America does not mean we are exempt from the same situations if our policies resemble what you are trying to affirm.
Posted by Tidin 6 years ago
Tidin
Seems you are using complete hyperbole.
Posted by annhasle 6 years ago
annhasle
And because they chose to have sex, they should be forced into a situation where the child will most likely die or they will?
Posted by Tidin 6 years ago
Tidin
I can live with the consequences, so long as they can. We have an abundant of child care programs that are available to anyone who needs to use them.
Posted by Tidin 6 years ago
Tidin
You seem to forget they chose to have sex.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
TidinannhasleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
TidinannhasleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
TidinannhasleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by nhq 6 years ago
nhq
TidinannhasleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by nonentity 6 years ago
nonentity
TidinannhasleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
TidinannhasleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
TidinannhasleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Vote Placed by rogue 6 years ago
rogue
TidinannhasleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
TidinannhasleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05